Sales Digest

CORNELIA MATABUENA vs. PETRONILA CERVANTES L-2877 (38 SCRA 284) March 31, 1971  FACTS:                 In 1956, herein appellant’s brother Felix Matabuena donated a piece of lot to his common-law spouse, herein appellee Petronila Cervantes.  Felix and Petronila got married only in 1962 or six years after the deed of donation was executed.  Five months later, or September 13, 1962, Felix died.  Thereafter, appellant Cornelia Matabuena, by reason of being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased, filed a claim over the property, by virtue of a an affidavit of self-adjudication executed by her in 1962, had the land declared in her name and paid the estate and inheritance taxes thereon. The lower court of Sorsogon declared that the donation was valid inasmuch as it was made at the time when Felix and Petronila were not yet spouses, rendering Article 133 of the Civil Code inapplicable.  ISSUE:  Whether or not the ban on donation between spouses during a marriage applies to a common-law relationship.  HELD:                 While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during marriage, policy consideration of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality requires that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship.                  As stated in Buenaventura vs. Bautista (50 OG 3679, 1954), if the policy of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials.                  The lack of validity of the donation by the deceased to appellee does not necessarily result in appellant having exclusive right to the disputed property.  As a widow, Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the surviving sister to the other half.                   Article 1001, Civil Code: Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. RUBIAS vs. BATILLER (51 SCRA 120); May 29, 1973 FACTS: Petitioner Domingo Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover the ownership and possession of certain portions of lot which he bought from his father-in-law (Francisco Militante) when he was counsel of the latter in a land registration case involving the lot in question against its present occupant respondent (Isaias Batiller). Respondent claimed that the complaint does not state a cause of action, the truth of the matter being that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual, open, and continuous possession since time immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question. The trial court issued a pre-trial order which stated that during the pre-trial conference, the parties have agreed that the facts are attendant in the case and that they will no longer introduce any evidence, testimonial or documentary to prove them. (Pls. read the full text of the case to be guided on this portion.) ISSUE: WON the contract of sale between the petitioner and his father-in-law was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute RULING: YES! Manifestly, plaintiff’s complaint against defendant, to be declared absolute owner of the land and to be restored to possession thereof with damages was bereft of any factual or legal basis. The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his clients is categorically prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, and that consequently, plaintiff’s purchase of the property in litigation from his client was void and could produce no legal effect by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph 7 of the Civil Code which provides that contracts “ expressly prohibited or declared void by law” are “ inexistent and void from the beginning” and that “these contracts cannot be ratified”. The Court cited Director of Lands vs. Abagat (53 Phil 147; March 27, 1929), which the Court again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyer’s purchase of the land in litigation from his client, ordered the issuance of writ of possession for the return of the land by the lawyer to the adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by him and other expenses. Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property from acquiring such property in their trust or control directly or indirectly and even at a public or judicial auction as follows: a.) guardians, b.) agents, c.) administrators, d.) public officers and employees, judicial officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers, and e.) others especially disqualified by law. Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77 Facts:     On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for lack of an appeal. On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project of partition of lots was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. Macariola. The Judge approved it in his order dated October 23, 1963. One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots denominated as Lot 1184 A – E. Dr. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964, who was issued transfer of certificate of Title No, 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife. On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. Judge Asuncion was the President and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and Galapons were also the stockholder of the corporation. Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for violating the following provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Article 14, par. 1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act., Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints filed against Asuncion. Issue:  Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions. Ruling:  No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting of "Acts unbecoming a Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities. Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion bought the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated October and November, 1963. The said property was no longer the subject of litigation. In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce, which sourced from the Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because whenever there is a change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign.